Basically they’re saying they know better and are the only people who can save the poor minorities from themselves.
Category: Crap For Brains
PRESIDENT BIDEN’S FANTASY GUN CONTROL AGENDA
Where the Answers are Made Up and the Second Amendment Doesn’t Matter
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we have a problem. The President is on the loose again, uttering nonsense about the Second Amendment.
President Joe Biden spoke to a collection of political donors as he’s gearing up his 2024 re-election campaign and used his gun control grindstone to churn out well-worn and discredited Second Amendment tropes. The problem is – it’s all malarky. No kidding, man.
President Joe Biden might just be the lying dog-face pony soldier he accuses others of being.
F-16s and AR-15s
The president belittled Americans who agree that the Second Amendment exists to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping power from the people.
“You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15,” said President Biden according to Fox News.
Aside from the veiled threat to use actual weapons of war against the American people, President Biden’s swipe at Americans who value their rights was intended to target the lawful ownership of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today. They’re the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America.
Second Amendment Second Thoughts
“We have to change,” President Biden said. “There’s a lot of things we can change, because the American people by and large agree you don’t need a weapon of war. I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious.”
First, he’s overselling his authority as a law professor. President Biden briefly served as Benjamin Franklin Presidential Professor of the Practice at the University of Pennsylvania for two years between his terms as vice president and his campaign for The White House, according to a fact check by the Austin American-Statesman. He was paid $900,000 and his duties “involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
His description as a “Second Amendment guy” might come as a surprise to other “Second Amendment guys.” That doesn’t normally include ideas like universal background checks that would require a national firearm owner registry, restrictions that would ban entire classes of firearms, repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow frivolous lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms by remote third parties or – as the president points out here – a clear ignorance of the National Firearms Act.
Fox News reported, correctly, that the Second Amendment makes no mention of firearm restrictions. Gun control laws at the federal level didn’t start until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt. That’s 143 years later.
Americans can legally own machine guns, although it is extremely restricted. No automatic firearm produced after May 1986 is available for commercial sale but those produced before then can be – and are – legally owned. Owners have to pay a $200 tax stamp and register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
When it comes to cannons, well, President Biden blasted that one too. It was legal to own a cannon when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. It’s still legal to own one today.
President Biden made the same erroneous claim in April 2022 and in June of 2021, when The Washington Post fact checked him on that one. He earned “Four Pinocchios,” writing “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.”
Rapid-Fire Falsehoods
None of this is new. President Biden, who claims to own two shotguns, is hardly the Second Amendment expert he presents himself to be. He once told his wife she should “fire two blasts” of a shotgun blindly into the air if she felt threatened. That’s terrible and dangerous legal advice. Among the four fundamental firearm safety rules is to know your target and what is beyond.
This advice was actually invoked in a court case, where the accused, Jeffrey Barton, was charged with aggravated assault. Prosecutors ended up dropping those charges and instead charged him with police obstruction, of which he was convicted.
President Biden once argued to ban 9 mm Glocks, claiming in an interview with Charlie Rose that he could kill more people with a .38-caliber revolver. He also oddly told police they should shoot “unarmed” attacking criminals wielding knives “in the leg.” Police ripped that suggestion. Fox News reported the Fraternal Order of Police said it was “completely ridiculous,” “unrealistic” and a “pandering talking point.”
President Biden didn’t stop there. He believes that 9 mm handguns are especially dangerous.
“A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” President Biden said. “The idea of a high caliber weapon, there is simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting.”
The president’s 9 mm claim was debunked as “bullsh*t,” by a federal agent with 15 years of service. Another with 20 years said, “Not possible.” A 21-year veteran of the U.S. Marshal fugitive recovery task force told Breitbart that President Biden’s claim is, “… not even in the realm of possibility.”
That’s the problem with President Biden. He’s living in a fantasy world of utter nonsense.
The Toughest Job In D.C. — Transcribing Biden’s Remarks
Watching President Joe Biden try to make his way through a speech is painful enough. Reading a transcript of it is worse. Not just because Biden’s words are even more confusing in print, but because you start to feel a strong sense of pity for the person responsible for figuring out what he is trying to say, how much of it to transcribe verbatim, and which facts to correct.
We looked through Biden’s remarks from just this month and found 15 instances where the transcriber felt compelled to make corrections on things the president said.
Here’s an example from one 11-minute speech he gave over the weekend in Palo Alto.
Forty million — 40 million Americans already drinking water that thousands of farmers rely on for — for
integration[irrigation]. And 40 million count on that river and so do the farmers….Folks, flood mitigation: $3.5
million[billion] to reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings, plus $1 billion in funding mitigation measures to increase community resilience, like supporting adaptations of hazard-resistant building codesAnd maybe most important, I’ve committed by
2020[2030], we will have conserved 30 percent of all the lands and waters the United States has jurisdiction over and simultaneously reduce emissions to blunt climate impacts.
Other examples from this month as they appear in the official White House transcripts:
- “Mary
Robinson[Barra], the Chairman of the Board of General Motors …” - “Instead, I signed into law the Bipartisan Safers [sic] Community Act, which you’ve referenced several times today …”
- “Last summer, I had the honor of bestowing the Presidential Meda- — Medal of Freemon [sic] — Freedom on distinguished Americans …”
- “The ticket seller,
SeatGreek[SeatGeek], is also set to give customers the option of seeing all-in, upfront prices …” - “And I’m pleased we’re also joined by x-pay [sic] — xBk, a small venue in Des Moines, Iowa, that’s going be using all upfront pricing for its hundred events at — a year as well …”
- “Let me tell you, the Inflation Reduction Act includes $369 billion to comat [sic] — combat climate change …”
- “We made clear — they made clear that we’d rather th- — they’d rather threaten the default of the U.S. economy than cut or get rid of, for example, $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies who made $200 million [sic] last year — billion. I said ‘million.’ Billion dollars last year …”
- “When we were at the G7, we talked about — one of the meetings was — they used to call the Build Back Better World. It’s not that now. It’s the
PIII[PGII] — P-triple-I [sic] …” - “At the G7, it was originally called Build Back Better World, but we were talking about — there’s a new
PPI[PGII] — anyway — an industrial policy that we’re all signed on to …” - “As Commander-in-Chief, I was proud to have ended the ban on transgester [sic] Americans — transgender Americans serving in the United States military …”
- “And finally, this executive order means more resources, especially when it comes to improving military families’ access to quality,
defendable[dependable], and affordable — affordable childcare …” - “This could have been the week that a catastrophic — catastrophic devault [sic] — default happened …”
But, while the White House appears to be trying to present an accurate record of Biden’s mumbles and stumbles, even this is a cleaned-up version of history.
At that same Palo Alto event, what the audience heard Biden say was: “Here in California, the goverer — you and I stood together.” But the official transcript has Biden correctly pronouncing the word “governor.”
Then there are all the times the transcriber just has to give up and put “(inaudible)” in places where Biden so garbles his words that nobody can make them out. That happened at a Cabinet meeting earlier this month, when Biden said “I’m going to ask Natalie, quickly, to explain, while you’re all here, how it works. We don’t have the ability — it’s not — we don’t have a laptop to type over (inaudible). We’re just going to show you.” (See whether you can decipher the missing words at the 3:34 mark on the video.)
And all this is to say nothing of the bizarre and befuddling things that routinely come out of Biden’s mouth these days. Such as when he ended a speech saying “God save the Queen, man.” Or when he declared that “We have plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean.”
Last week, Biden attended an event about the rebuilding of I-95 after a section collapsed outside Philadelphia, which also featured the city’s mayor, the state’s governor and its even more remarkably incoherent junior senator. After the mayor praised Biden’s response to the event, Biden went back up the podium to say “I might add that if I didn’t, I’d be sleeping alone.” Which he apparently meant as a joke, but which nobody understood. So, he came back to the mic to say: “I have to explain … I better explain that sumdonnowhatmtal. My wife’s a Philly girl.” Then, looking confused, he says, “alright, where we goin’?”
That part of the event, captured by C-SPAN, didn’t make it into the White House transcript.
Well, it’s SloJoe. We shouldn’t expect him to make sense
Biden’s Latest Anti-Gun Claims Aren’t Just False — They Don’t Even Make Sense
Biden’s most recent anti-gun claims during the National Safer Communities Summit are false, incomplete, and incoherent.
Biden’s gun control speech on Friday at the National Safer Communities Summit in Connecticut got attention because the president nonsensically concluded with “God save the Queen, man.” However, this was not his only incoherent claim.
In his speech, Biden stated: “Put a pistol on a brace, and it ma- — turns into a gun. Makes them where you can have a higher-caliber weapon — a higher-caliber bullet coming out of that gun. It’s essentially turning it into a short-barreled rifle, which has been a weapon of choice by a number of mass shooters.”
Of course, a “stabilizing brace” doesn’t turn a pistol into a gun. A pistol already is a gun.
What’s more, stabilizing braces have only been used in two mass public shootings (Dayton, Ohio, in 2019 and Boulder, Colorado, in 2021), but there is no evidence that the braces even made any difference in these attacks.
Even so, few realize that stabilizing braces were originally designed to allow veterans with hand disabilities to hold handguns, not for mass shooters to commit a crime more effectively. The braces are straps that allow the disabled person to keep hold of the gun when it recoils. Without a gun and a steady aim, disabled people are very vulnerable to criminals. But Biden will never mention that.
Even when pistol braces are used among law-abiding gun owners who are not disabled, their personal efforts to ensure steadier aim are not inherently negative or dangerous.
If Biden is worried about the dangerous potential of more powerful guns with less recoil, he should also address the various ways they can be obtained apart from stabilizing braces. For example, rifles are powerful weapons — 70 out of 82 bullets used in rifles are ranked as more powerful than a .223. If a criminal wants reduced recoil, he can simply use a rifle — heavier guns dampen the recoil, and rifles weigh more.
What’s more, in guns with short barrels, such as pistols, the bullet leaves the barrel before full pressure is developed and travels at a lower velocity. However, if an attacker wants a more powerful and more compact gun, there are alternatives to handguns. He can easily saw off part of the barrel of the rifle. After all, when facing multiple life sentences for murder, an additional penalty for sawing off the end of a rifle won’t make much difference.
But even Biden’s claim that short-barrel rifles are the weapon of choice for these mass murderers is also ridiculous. Again, only two of the roughly 100 mass public shooters over the last 25 years involved handguns with pistol braces. In 56.4 percent of mass shootings, only handguns were used (no braces), in 14.9 percent, rifles were used, and in 16 percent of attacks, rifles and another type of gun were used.
Finally, there is Biden’s screaming claim that “We are sending dangerous weapons, particularly assault weapons, to Mexico.” Mexico’s president does indeed blame America for his country’s high murder rate — in some recent years, it has been six times higher than the rate in the U.S.
According to data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), close to 70 percent of all criminally-owned guns in Mexico traced from 2009-2014 came from the U.S. A significant number of these were purchased legally in southwest states before being criminally smuggled over the border.
However, these figures are based only on the limited number of guns that Mexican authorities have seized, traced, and submitted to the agency for checking. For instance, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF in 2007-08, though it seized 29,000. Of those, they successfully traced 6,000, and 5,114 (or 85 percent) of those traceable weapons came from the U.S. Thus, only about 17.6 percent of the firearms that Mexico collected were traced back to the U.S. That’s a small subset.
More recent data from the ATF for 2016 to 2021 even shows that the 70 percent has declined to around 50 percent, but we don’t have the rest of the breakdown in the numbers for this later period. And a 2016 U.S. Government Accountability Office report complained of limited collaboration with Mexican authorities on tracing guns.
And what about the fully automatic guns and grenades used to commit murders in Mexico? You can’t just go into gun stores in the U.S. and buy these types of weapons. However, between 2005 and 2014, the Mexican government seized more than 13,000 grenades.
“These kinds of guns — the auto versions of these guns — they are not coming from El Paso,” Ed Head, an Arizona firearms instructor with over two decades of experience as a U.S. Border Patrol agent told Fox News. “They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don’t get these guns from the U.S.”
Similarly, as an anonymous Tijuana-based police authority told Fox News, “Most cartels buy in bulk, and the weapons are coming from places like Nicaragua and other South American countries. Also Asia and some from the Middle East.”
Machine guns, grenades, and other weapons are also stolen from the Mexican military before being sold to these cartels.
Unfortunately, the news media and their “fact-checkers” are prone to ignore Biden’s false gun claims from misstating how guns work to the source of Mexico’s violent crime problem. Sure, once in a while they acknowledge how he lied about a U.S. cannon ban at the country’s founding. But they refuse to address his lies and how they are unjustly shaping today’s public opinion surrounding gun ownership.
I wouldn’t say it’s a ‘victory’. A judge on the Appeals Court simply stayed enforcement of an injunction to stop the law from taking effect.
NJ scores victory in federal court over concealed carry gun legislation
A federal court issued an order in favor of the state on Tuesday as the latest development in the legal battle over gun reform legislation.
The order, a stay requested by the state last month, will make it so that enforcement of limits on where concealed weapons can be carried in New Jersey is not restricted.
The motion filed by the state’s Attorney General’s Office said that not allowing enforcement of the restrictions “threatens public safety by allowing loaded guns in crowded theaters, bars, protests, and Fourth of July celebrations in parks, as well as zoos and libraries where children gather — just to name a few.”
“Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.”
Can’t own a machinegun? Hmmm(Looking at the machineguns in my safe)
What a load of crap-for brains
And as for ‘taking on government? I’ll leave you to consider this from the late Mike Vanderboegh:
“Direct military operations” are precisely what the 4GW insurgent seeks to avoid. His target is the mind and the will of the political leadership of his enemy — to be specific, the few inches between their ears which are filled with brains to be influenced or, if not, popped like a grape with an unanswerable rifle shot from distance as an example to the others.”
Biden mocks Second Amendment supporters, says you ‘need an F-16’ to take on government
Biden has repeatedly mocked the Second Amendment, claiming it ‘doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want’
President Biden took another swipe at Second Amendment supporters Tuesday evening, reminding them that they would “need an F-16” to challenge the U.S. government.
Biden’s remarks at a fundraising event in a private residence in California came as he discussed gun violence in America and stressed the notion that Americans do not need AR-15s.
“We have to change,” Biden said. “There’s a lot of things we can change, because the American people by and large agree you don’t need a weapon of war. I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious.”
“You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15,” he added.
Biden also suggested that the popularity of AR-15s among gun makers stems from its cheap production and high profit margins.
“You know one of the reasons why the AR-15 is so strongly supported by so many folks in that — in that industry? Number one, it’s the cheapest weapon to make and it’s the highest profit motive they have for any weapon that is made. It makes more money to sell an AR-15 than any other weapon you can buy,” he said.
The comments from Biden on Tuesday are similar to those he made earlier this year, when he told those gathered at the National Action Network’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast in Washington that those who support the use of AR-15s will need a much bigger arsenal to stand a chance against the government.
“I love my right-wing friends who talk about the tree of liberty is water of the blood of patriots,” Biden said in January. “If you need to work about taking on the federal government, you need some F-15s. You don’t need an AR-15.”
The quote Biden refers to dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president.
Biden’s claims that there have always been limits on the Second Amendment have been analyzed and found to be false when he has made them repeatedly over the past few years.
The Second Amendment, as written, does not limit who can “keep and bear arms” or what kind of arms people can keep and bear. Federal gun regulation didn’t come until 1934, decades after the Second Amendment was introduced.
The Constitution does, however, give Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” which were government licenses that allowed civilians to attack and detain vessels of countries at war with the U.S., The Washington Post pointed out in 2021.
“Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle,” the Post reported at the time.
Since taking office, Biden has urged Congress to pass gun control measures. In June 2022, after it was passed by both the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Biden signed into law the most significant gun control bill in nearly 30 years.
Retroactive commitments are the best
Biden Pledges Climate Action ‘by 2020’ in Latest Gaffe
WOW: Joe Biden promises to conserve "30% of all the lands and waters the United States has jurisdiction over" by the year…2020? pic.twitter.com/qCoAm2wrYq
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 19, 2023
The New York Post reports on President Biden musing to the press before he boarded the plane to hit the campaign trail in Philadelphia yesterday. The White House has helped us along with a transcript. Here we have a pure case of projection, Biden style:
President Biden kicked off his first day of campaigning for re-election by making excuses for communist China — saying that President Xi Jinping never meant to fly a spy balloon over sensitive American military sites earlier this year.
“I don’t think the leadership knew where it was, and knew what was in it, and knew what was going on,” Biden told reporters Saturday as he headed to Philadelphia for his first campaign rally of the 2024 election. “I think it was more embarrassing than it was intentional.”
Biden does everything thing but thank the Chinese Communists for taking an interest in our military installations. What do they have on him? I should like to think that no one can be this stupid without motivation.
As I noted in “Lost horizon” and again in “The Biden two-step,” the CCP regime goes out of its way to show its disrespect of Biden. “Contempt” is probably more like it. Gordon Chang shows how in the 1945 column: “Secretary Blinken’s Visit To China Is One Giant Mistake.”
Who on earth could have seen this coming?
Biden’s Latest Big Lie: He Put an End to Roving Urban Gun Sales Trucks
Biden: "Down in Philadelphia and New York, areas I know well, like up here, you'd see a truck pull up, pull the curb and selling weapons, selling guns, selling AR-15s." pic.twitter.com/RH23Zq9zHR
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 16, 2023
The phrase "I'm deviating from the script, and I going to get in trouble" raises alarming implications, particularly when considering the presence of a puppet master. The notion that someone is pulling the strings, manipulating events is deeply unsettling and demands careful…
— Razgriz (@DamianNB) June 15, 2023
The phrase “I’m deviating from the script, and I going to get in trouble” raises alarming implications, particularly when considering the presence of a puppet master. The notion that someone is pulling the strings, manipulating events is deeply unsettling and demands careful reflection. @DamianNB
Nobody cares but those who are still virtue signaling by wearing masks
White House Sends Out Guidance Mandating Face Masks and Social Distancing for the Unvaccinated.
On Monday, the White House will host NCAA men’s and women’s national championship teams from Divisions I, II, and III to “College Athlete Day” to celebrate their victories.
Prior to the event, the White House sent out an email invitation to members of Congress requesting their attendance at the event and some additional logistical information. And they included some helpful “guidance” about specific protocols. Among them: All unvaccinated guests were to wear masks and practice social distancing.
WTF?
“Masking Guidance: Fully vaccinated guests are not required to wear a mask on the White House grounds,” the email states [bold font in original email]. “Guests who are not fully vaccinated must wear a mask at all times and maintain at least 6 feet distance from others while on the White House grounds.“
When queried by Fox News, the White House claimed the guidance was “out of date” and that they were planning to send out “updated guidance” prior to Monday’s event.
Don’t these guys talk to their own scientists? Masks don’t stop the spread of COVID. Vaccinations don’t stop people from getting infected. Social distancing is of marginal effectiveness for those under 60 years old.
The White House email comes as hospitals and other health care facilities increasingly discard their masking rules with COVID becoming a smaller presence for most Americans in daily life.
Meanwhile, experts have been calling into question the efficacy of face masks. A recent study published by the prestigious Cochrane Library, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health, dug into the findings of 78 randomized controlled trials to determine whether “physical interventions” — including face masks and hand-washing — lessened the spread of respiratory viruses.
The conclusion about masks undercuts the scientific basis for masking, according to the study’s lead author.
I don’t think that the White House made a mistake in sending out guidance that included the requirement that the unvaccinated be masked up. I think there is still a faction in the United States government that won’t ever admit they were wrong about masking and the ability of vaccinations to stop the spread of COVID-19. Despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary, they will go to their grave believing in the efficacy of masks. And while the vaccines were shown to substantially reduce hospitalizations and death from COVID, it was never even tested for their ability to prevent infections.
Will anyone ever hold them accountable — especially Joe Biden?
Biden previously attacked those unvaccinated against COVID for not doing the “right thing” and “costing all of us.” He accused them of causing “a lot of damage” by “making people sick and causing… people to die” and standing in the way of “getting back to normal.”
When announcing his vaccine mandates last year, Biden warned those hesitant to receive the vaccination: “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.”
Biden signed a bill in April that terminated much of the “special authority” the government said it had during the emergency. Someone in the White House didn’t get the word.
This is why no one has respect for today's "journalists."
— Mayor of Ancappalachia (@jaynarchy) June 12, 2023
Now They’re REALLY Serious: Biden Taps VP Harris to Lead Administration’s Gun Control Messaging
Media reported the president assigned Vice President Kamala Harris, widely panned as “one of the worst VPs in history,” to be the “leading voice” on gun control and charged her with making those issues front and center for the campaign.
Election Day 2024 is “just” about 500 days away.
Success! NYC’s Drug Paraphernalia Machine Cleaned Out in One Night.
If it were a Broadway show, it would have received rave reviews. “A Hit!” “NYC Scores Big in New Debut! “Boffo!” “A Must-See!” “Five Stars and Two Thumbs Up!” “All of Gotham Is Talking!”
Alas, we aren’t talking about the latest play or musical to grace the Great White Way. Nope. We’re talking about the machine that dispenses free drug paraphernalia to users in New York City. But to be fair, it was received extremely well by the target demographic. The machine in question was installed on Monday in Brownsville, Brooklyn. It offers crack pipes, drug test strips, condoms, and Narcan. And lip balm. Patrons can also get tampons and gum.
By 1:00 P.M. Tuesday, a drug prevention program worker was hard at work restocking it. That same worker suspected that it might need to be restocked at least twice a day. For the most part, users were happy with the new amenity. Evelyn Williams told the New York Post, “Yes, I love it. They put it in yesterday, and it’s empty already.” She added, “We have a lot of addicts and heroin users over here. They should re-stock it immediately!” Another man rode by on a bike, gave a thumbs up, and said simply, “Yeah!”
Not everyone was impressed. The paper reported that 56-year-old Minoshi Calpe groused that the crack pipes were not quite up to her standards. She said she preferred the Pyrex pipes, and that the ones in the vending machine had no resale value since they were already available for free. She stated, “The crack pipes are a little too thin now. And every time I pull on [the newer ones], it was burning my lips. I was like, ‘Hell, no! I like my lips too much for this.’”
The machines cost around $11,000 without the contents. In the future, the city may also offer syringes for injection drugs. Charming.
The people in charge of the cluster-**** that has become New York City will undoubtedly tout this as an act of compassion. Actually, this is an act designed to help bureaucrats launder money through the system. And it has the added bonus of increasing poverty, death, and disease. And it should also contribute to the number of citizens getting accosted and assaulted on the streets and pushed onto subway tracks.
I know that Mayor Eric Adams recently gave a speech touting the values of patriotism. It was a nice speech from someone who may view himself as center-left. But a good speech is not going to help a city that is so complicit in its own demolition. If Adams wants to say anything, he should start with admitting that New York City has a left-wing problem. That is, as after all, the first step to recovery.
Grandstanding:
(from the notion of performing to crowds in the grandstands)
the action of behaving in a showy or ostentatious manner in an attempt to attract favorable attention from spectators or the media:
Political posturing:
also known as “kabuki theatre”
the use of speech or actions to gain political support through emotional or affective appeals, especially to describe politicians suspected of acting insincerely to please their supporters.
Yeah, I think he’s seriously considering running for President if SloJoe goes into vapor lock, or falls, misses his head and breaks something vital.
He knows this is going nowhere, but it’s good political fodder for the demoncrap base in case the opportunity arises.
Newsom proposes constitutional amendment to restrict gun rights
Newsom says a constitutional amendment is needed to enact commonsense gun safety laws supported by the American people
California Democratic Govern. Gavin Newsom wants to change the Constitution to curb gun rights.
Fed up with inaction on gun control, Newsom unveiled a proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution on Thursday that would implement “commonsense” gun safety measures he claims have widespread bipartisan support.
“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” Newsom said Thursday. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution commonsense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the Second Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”
Newsom’s proposal comes after federal courts have delivered a series of victories for gun rights activists, led by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year striking down a century-old New York law that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun.
The Democratic governor’s proposed 28th Amendment would not abolish the Second Amendment, which establishes a right to bear firearms for personal self-defense. However, it would raise the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; mandate universal background checks to purchase firearms; institute a waiting period for all gun purchases; and ban “assault weapons.”
Newsom’s proposed amendment would also affirm that Congress, states and local governments can enact additional gun control measures.
The Constitution can be amended by either Congress or a convention of states under Article V.
Congress can pass a proposed amendment with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, sending it to the states for ratification. With Republicans in control of the House and a 51-49 Democratic majority in the Senate, there is virtually no chance that a constitutional amendment restricting gun rights will have enough support to pass through Congress.
Instead, Newsom is calling for an Article V convention of states to convene and draft his proposed amendment. Two-thirds of the state legislatures must pass a resolution calling for such a convention before it can convene to consider an amendment to the Constitution. If such a convention adopts a proposed amendment, it then heads back to the state legislatures for ratification.
Three-fourths of the states must ratify a proposed amendment for it to be added to the Constitution – a rare and difficult feat that has only been accomplished 27 times in the nation’s history.
Newsom said he will campaign to build grassroots support and lobby other state legislatures to move forward with an Article V convention. A news release from his office included supporting statements from California lawmakers in the state Assembly and Senate.
Gun rights groups were quick to condemn Newsom’s proposal as an attack on the Second Amendment.
“We’ve always warned those who cherish their God-given liberties that the ultimate goal of anti-gunners was the abolishment of the Second Amendment,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA).
“While they often try to hide behind legislative proposals and hush open talk of abolishing the Second Amendment, here we have a potential future presidential candidate now coming out and openly admitting what they’ve wanted to do all along,” Pratt said. “GOA will strongly oppose this proposal as we work to protect and restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”
LEGAL ALERT: A judge has denied the motion for preliminary injunction in our lawsuit challenging Washington's "assault weapon ban," saying that the banned firearms "allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns." https://t.co/pE8vgg2puP
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 6, 2023

A “compromise” from the gun prohibitionists – you can’t own one, but maybe you can borrow one
Earlier today we reported on the first few hours of the supposed-to-be massive protest outside the Colorado state capitol in Denver, where the group Here 4 The Kids is holding a sit-in to pressure Gov. Jared Polis into signing an executive order banning gun sales and possession in the state. While organizer Saira Rao predicted 25,000 or more would be on hand early Monday morning, the Colorado Sun reports the number was closer to 250 people, and though a few folks have trickled onto the capitol grounds since then there’s nowhere near 25,000 in attendance.
The Sun did manage to speak with a few supporters of the flagrantly unconstitutional executive order proposed by Rao, and it’s fascinating to see how deep the delusion runs with some of these folks, starting with Rao herself.
“Yes, it is in violation of the Second Amendment, and what we are saying is, as a decent human being, at some point, you have to decide that the right to life and our children’s’ right to life must trump anybody’s right to bear arms,” Here 4 The Kids co-founder Saira Rao said Friday.
“The people who have been elected to office have to choose if they will choose children’s lives over guns,” said Rao, a former lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the 2018 Democratic primary and then moved to Virginia. “That’s the fundamental choice. And if he’s saying he will not, he is making a choice that will put him on the wrong side of history.”
Change doesn’t happen without major shifts, she said. Americans had to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery, which was considered radical and unthinkable to many in 1865, at a time when slavery was the foundation of the American economy, she said.
“Imagine if people were just like, ‘We can’t do it.’ Indeed, they can, and they did, and now we have the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery,” Rao said.
Rao’s not trying to amend the Constitution. She’s trying to get Polis and other Democrat governors to ignore it, which isn’t going to go well. As we’ve seen from states like New York and California, anti-gun Democrats would prefer to pay lip service to the Second Amendment while violating the fundamental right to keep and bear arms rather than explicitly rejecting the right altogether, which would cause even courts that have been traditionally hostile to our Second Amendment rights to step in put a halt to their attempt at prohibition.
Nearly 30% of people under 30 support government surveillance cameras in every home: poll
‘Young people seem more willing to prioritize safety over ensuring robust freedom’
Roughly three in 10 Americans under 30 favor “the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity,” according to the results of a new Cato Institute survey.
“We don’t know how much of this preference for security over privacy or freedom is something unique to this generation (a cohort effect) or simply the result of youth (age effect),” Cato reported. “However, there is reason to think part of this is generational.”
Cato conducted its 2023 Central Bank Digital Currency National Survey of 2,000 Americans in collaboration with YouGov from February 27 to March 8. It included a wide swath of ideologies, ages and other demographics.
One question asked: “Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity?” Overall, most respondents were against the idea:
Strongly favor 6%
Somewhat favor 8%
Neither favor or oppose 10%
Somewhat oppose 7%
Strongly oppose 68%
While the younger generation tends to favor the idea, support declines with age, “dropping to 20 percent among 30–44 year olds and dropping considerably to 6 percent among those over the age of 45,” Cato reported.
“… It is also possible that increased support for government surveillance among the young has common roots with what Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt describe in the Coddling of the American Mind: young people seem more willing to prioritize safety (from possible violence or hurtful words) over ensuring robust freedom (from government surveillance or to speak freely).”
The survey results also found that, when broken down by ethnicity and ideology, minorities and the center-left are more open to government surveillance than other categories.

“African Americans (33 percent) and Hispanic Americans (25 percent) are more likely than White Americans (9 percent) and Asian Americans (11 percent) to support in‐home government surveillance. Democrats (17 percent) are also more likely than Republicans (11 percent) to support it but not by a wide margin,” Cato reported.
The libertarian think tank pointed out that it asked the question about home surveillance as part of its survey on Central Bank Digital Currencies “to see whether there is a relationship between opinions on the government issuing a central bank digital currency and government installing cameras in homes.”
“It appears that the two opinions are correlated. Interestingly, more than half (53 percent) of those who support the United States adopting a CBDC are also supportive of government surveillance cameras in homes, while only 2 percent of those who oppose a CBDC feel the same,” the institute reported.
“This suggests there may be a common consideration that is prompted by both issues. Likely, it has to do with willingness to give up privacy in hopes of greater security.”
The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 2.54 percent.
